You are doing it again. There are many many that own assault weapons that dont hoard, drink, hate the government, or any other tag you would like to
put on them.

I am not the one tying those things together, I was talking about fear. I somehow feel that you are projecting into my words your own thoughts, fears
and ideas. There was nothing in my second post about drinking or hating the government.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Again, not talking about banning ALL guns - just the ones that are the easiest to use to kill lots of people in seconds.

Why? Adam Lanza executed the Sandy Hook shooting with handguns.

I thought the point of all of this outrage was because of mass shootings like Sandy Hook.

The semi-auto AR15 was found in his trunk and wasn't used in the shooting. He used the semi-auto handguns to kill people.

From my understanding (and I have may liberal friends that say the same thing) the gun control logic is that we don't need guns that can rapid fire
and kill many people at once when the fact of the matter is death by fully auto machine guns are extremely low and death by even semi-auto rifles are
low as well. The bulk of death by guns are by handgun and the large majority of them are gang related and committed by criminals who get their guns
illegally anyway (it makes sense because they have absolutely no respect for the law).

So why pursue the argument of banning automatic and semi-automatic rifles when they aren't even the problem?

If your goal is to save people from guns that have potential to be dangerous then logic dictates that you would want to ban ALL guns or at the very
least get to the root of the problem to actually make a dent in the 'death by gun' rate.

So let's say full auto and semi-autos were completely gone tomorrow and the decrease in gun death rate is miniscule at best, would you then support a
push to ban ALL guns, to get a better desired result in death rate? I know you said you supported the second amendment to bear arms but I don't know,
some people change their mind in an instant when they don't get their desired result. I don't know how you would act in that situation, so I'm
asking...for clarification.

more propaganda ?? what is the point of such a comment ?
we, who have read the proposed legislation, know differently.

No where in Obama's 23 executive orders is there anything demanding that guns and ammo be turned in or confiscated.

Obama hasn't
issued any EOs on the issue

Executive Actions are suggestions, nothing more, yet.

It is time for rational thought and discussion

we are so far beyond that, it is hysterically comical to read such a reference

It is nice to see that you are a Glen Beck fan, and effectively edit my comments to make your point. I am not your enemy, and while our thoughts may
not be the same, they are not incompatible unless you choose to make them so. The hardcore gun lobby is not in anyway winning the hearts of the
American people, in fact many of the hardcore gun lobby are driving those, that might support a great deal of their agenda, into silence, or worse
yet, to the other side. As I have said many times, I do not see the world in black and white, I see it in a continuum of gray, no one is 100% right
all of the time.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I'm a progressive, and while I don't personally like guns, I believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I just think we need to be reasonable
about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a
matter of minutes.

yet, how many of the abusers were prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment right to say or do such abusive things ??

I didn't say that words couldn't hurt. And there are statements that you cannot make without consequences. But a word does not tear into flesh. The
original argument was for the government requiring a background check to speak. Not the same as requiring a background check for a gun.

A simple order by a despot, "kill them" has proven deadly to millions throughout history. Yes words can kill.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are 270 million guns in this country

exactly how has anyone been denied the ability to bear arms ?

Well they are working on that. They have to get by the "shall not be infringed" part first.

Not saying they're going to do any of these things, but much could be accomplished just using their influence and control over commerce. Already
there was a bit of a brouhaha about BoA denying guns or ammo purchases using credit or debit cards. That was denied by the bank, of course, but the
possibility certainly exists.

There's also the potential for banks to simply shut down the accounts of gun dealers, as well as insurance companies jacking their liability ins.
high enough to put them out of business. Not to mention many gun dealers lease their store fronts so landlords could be pressured to raise their rent,
as well.

Not mention the ever tightening application hoops one must jump through for an approval.

Of course he is right, the Amendment is not about anything but the right of the people to overthrow a criminal, corrupt, useless government. The
Amendment was designed to resist tyrants. To hell with tyrants.

1. Is it constitutional for a human being to bear arms against another human being?

2. If it is then it is constitutional to kill another human being.

Of course this is not surprising since Justice in this world is riddled with religious overtones.

And another that doesn't understand that their interpretation is non-sequitor.

It is Constitutional for a citizen to keep and bear arms to fulfill the Natural Right of self-defense and to secure a nation under threat; not to
arbitrarily use against other citizens -- we do have laws and only the State has used your logic to kill.

Therefore, your 'A means this, so B must be true "logic"' is poor and contrived to fit your narrative. Brush up on your Socrates.

1. Is it constitutional for a human being to bear arms against another human being?

2. If it is then it is constitutional to kill another human being.

Of course this is not surprising since Justice in this world is riddled with religious overtones.

Honestly, those couple of questions are a little ridiculous to be asking, its almost rhetorical.

Nowhere in the Constitution (which is based on the rule of law) does it advocate murder of innocent people. However we all have the right to self
defense, we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, if we're talking about deposing dictators, it isn't just something you DO by telling others its a good idea. Nobody (except criminals) WANTS to
go out there and overthrow tyrannical regimes and be aggressive. When the time comes, it will come, it won't be because its the cool thing to do, it
will be because its the right thing to do and that the time is the right time when everybody realizes it. It might even be possible that by the time
people realize it, it will be too late, like the case in Nazi Germany.

Nowhere in the Constitution (which is based on the rule of law) does it advocate murder of innocent people. However we all have the right to self
defense, we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You are echoing my point about Justice that it is okay to murder those who are not innocent. Moreover, Justice even advocates collateral ( of
innocents) as long as the end justifies the means.

Why is it the words that killed and not the susceptibility of that persons mind and lack of will to live?

I find it very interesting that the same people here

that say it's not guns that kill but people that kill (which I agree) are touting it's words that kill and not the person that committed suicide.
Ultimately it's the fault of the person with the intention of ending life.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.